Adventure Forums - View Single Post

UPtimist · 05-22-2010, 03:36 AM

Graphics are in my opinion (and I believe quite a few agree) quite so-so. I mean, it's more about the art direction than the graphics themselves. The graphics don't need to be top-notch to be appealing (and especially for the game to be appealing), but if they're plain ugly it'll take away from the experience. For example, people still play games with really old graphics and love them (and people make indie games with retro graphics) - but if you just slap on some MS Paint blobs in random colors in monotonous rooms then of course most will not want to play the game.

Kinda like what Collector said about the interface (which is very true, BTW): good graphics won't make the game, but bad ones can break it. And good graphics aren't necessarily graphics with the most recent technology but such that look good with the resources you've got.

Approximately

Other things: Basically what the others said sums it up in a nutshell. I'll try to express my opinions though in slightly more detail. Basically you need to keep a nice rhythm/tempo/dynamics going in the game. You need to consider how long a player can listen to dialogue (especially without having the option for choosing topics (the illusion of interactivity, you might say) - I'm not saying it can't be long, there just needs to be a reasong and something to keep the player wanting to listen to it), the puzzles need to vary so that it's not always pick up object A and B in random places and combine them to make object C and then use them on hotspot D, nor should they always be minigames or something (and here you need to be careful that the game is not just a collection of minigames, they should make sense (so that it's not like a reaction test to open a door, or playing Frogger to make an explosive etc.)) - and importantly they shouldn't always be "oh no, I need to solve this to move forward" but there should be more "mundane" things to "solve" too (take a look at Gabriel Knights for great examples on this).

Actually, I'd avoid both cases of puzzles as much as possible (not so that there can't be any of either, but so that it doesn't feel like that's the majority of the puzzles). They're so overused that it doesn't take much to make the game feel old.

Also, in my opinion there needs to be a balance in interactivity - not just the important things but also not so that every pixel is a different hotspot. The world needs to be illustrated but not crammed (or the opposite when you often feel quite alone (and hotspots can sometimes offer advice when you're stuck). Again, Gabriel Knights

05-22-2010, 03:36 AM	#10
UPtimist Life and times of... Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Up there in the mist Posts: 6,025	Graphics are in my opinion (and I believe quite a few agree) quite so-so. I mean, it's more about the art direction than the graphics themselves. The graphics don't need to be top-notch to be appealing (and especially for the game to be appealing), but if they're plain ugly it'll take away from the experience. For example, people still play games with really old graphics and love them (and people make indie games with retro graphics) - but if you just slap on some MS Paint blobs in random colors in monotonous rooms then of course most will not want to play the game. Kinda like what Collector said about the interface (which is very true, BTW): good graphics won't make the game, but bad ones can break it. And good graphics aren't necessarily graphics with the most recent technology but such that look good with the resources you've got. Approximately Other things: Basically what the others said sums it up in a nutshell. I'll try to express my opinions though in slightly more detail. Basically you need to keep a nice rhythm/tempo/dynamics going in the game. You need to consider how long a player can listen to dialogue (especially without having the option for choosing topics (the illusion of interactivity, you might say) - I'm not saying it can't be long, there just needs to be a reasong and something to keep the player wanting to listen to it), the puzzles need to vary so that it's not always pick up object A and B in random places and combine them to make object C and then use them on hotspot D, nor should they always be minigames or something (and here you need to be careful that the game is not just a collection of minigames, they should make sense (so that it's not like a reaction test to open a door, or playing Frogger to make an explosive etc.)) - and importantly they shouldn't always be "oh no, I need to solve this to move forward" but there should be more "mundane" things to "solve" too (take a look at Gabriel Knights for great examples on this). Actually, I'd avoid both cases of puzzles as much as possible (not so that there can't be any of either, but so that it doesn't feel like that's the majority of the puzzles). They're so overused that it doesn't take much to make the game feel old. Also, in my opinion there needs to be a balance in interactivity - not just the important things but also not so that every pixel is a different hotspot. The world needs to be illustrated but not crammed (or the opposite when you often feel quite alone (and hotspots can sometimes offer advice when you're stuck). Again, Gabriel Knights Last edited by UPtimist; 05-22-2010 at 03:55 AM.